"New York City may be the first state"? Thats like watching a game show where the contestant is asked for a country in Europe that is fancy and them saying London or Paris.
My college also required a couple co-ops which were required to be a paid position so that they knew we were doing meaningful work that applied to our degree programs. Fetching coffee and running errands is not meaningful work (or experience) in my opinion.
Computer Science can be seen as having a theoretical and practical side. The theoretical side deals with defining how computers work, how to make them better, and why algorithms run the way they do and how to make them better. The practical side takes the theory and implements it; however, it still takes the abstract side to develop applications and make them do what you want efficiently.
You don't NEED math to write applications but without it, your applications will suck. Also, you won't be able to do anything much more advanced than a Helo, World application without memory and runtime issues. Also, go try to write a 3D Graphics engine without advanced math; I work on an OpenGL library and use matrix, vector, and physics maths every day. Not to mention the math I use to fine tune an application to run faster, use less memory, and logically fit parts together where they don't step on other running parts.
You might never use some of the math you learn but you will use math and if you want to be taken seriously, learn it or go write websites in html.
There is no EULA or ToS; when you download a movie from bittorrent or some other such service, all the FBI warnings etc have already been removed. I'm not saying what they're doing is right (it isn't); just saying that it isn't an EULA or ToS issue.
That was my first thought; maybe the better thing to do is create more competition in the market instead of allowing Verizon and AT&T to fuck us even harder. Like someone else said; the consumer is going to pay for the spectrum in the long run anyway; why not lower the cost of it (or lease it as another suggested) and lower everyone's phone bills. The less money we have to spend for cell service the more that goes to other businesses (ie. taxes; which would probably make up that made-up $12 billion figure eventually).
I love this idea; the thought that something like EM spectrum can be bought seems ridiculous. I understand the need to limit its use since having everyone attempting to use the same chunk would make it useless for all but "selling" it is telling the purchasing company that they now don't EVER have to deal with competition because nobody else can ever use that chunk.
I understand why it ended up this way; I was more interested in what Adobe's official answer to the AUS gov't was. (did they make some bullshit up or state what you wrote above?)
Because at work our customers want "lightweight" web applications (we do 3D visualization software) so we get to mess around with JS/WebGL but not often enough for me to look for a job elsewhere; thus the "annoying" adjective
loosely typed language without declaration requirements for methods/variables makes it such a huge pain in the ass to debug/understand/update source that I want to have nothing to do with it.
How about you don't worry about abandonware and, instead, keep a backup of all your apps (and any associated data) using something like Titanium Backup? Then, if something is pulled off the store you still have an apk you can install from if necessary. I know this doesn't handle new features but it would let you keep using something you really like.
So why only one planet? My comment still applies but it seems even more ridiculous. If you want people to opt-in/out of these choices, just ask for a sexual orientation during character creation (have an "other" section so people can see all options, maybe?). It's still ridiculous that it's limited to one planet. Does the star wars universe ferry all LGBT people to a single planet because they're a bunch of homophobic assholes? Seems shady at best on biowares part.
Sorry for the self-comment, but I just wanted to point out that I do not play SW:TOR and I am assuming these dialog choices are in-game macros like/wave and/dance (I've only ever played Final Fantasy XI and they were called emotes) or built-in chat messages that are also macros. I guess this could also be applied to chat filters but it didn't sound like it from the summary.
How about, instead of banning flirtatious dialog to a single planet, they remove it altogether if they intent to coddle their user base? If you're going to censor your players either go all or nothing. If you intend to take a stand at ignorant and bigoted viewpoints, then open it up game-wide and don't try to hide possibly objectionable content in the closet so to speak and, instead, put it out in the open. It's 2013 ffs and if people can't deal with other people being different, well, they can go fuck themselves.
Now, if this is because they don't want people harassing others with same-sex comments without actually being gay and are trying to limit that to a single planet then they should remove all suggestive comments entirely. If you're worried that a gay male character is going to offend a straight male character by telling him he looks sexy then don't have the comment available. The same can be said for a straight male making suggestive comments to a straight female; it can still be inappropriate and they don't have to be gay. If that's their issue; remove it entirely. (Well, I'd rather them ban players who can't behave like adults but that's another discussion I think.)
heh, its a nice thought but there are benefits for having someone there who does understand matters of law. however, they shouldn't be making policy choices regarding science, education, welfare, etc because they are probably not experts; especially if they are more concerned with re-election and campaign contributions to do what is best for the nation (though, that could be the case with anyone we choose to represent us; even experts)
Just take a look at Ted Stevens' "series of tubes" comment to see the ineptitude of congress. Lets say, for the sake of argument that Stevens was "dumbing it down" for his peers in congress and he was well versed in techno-babble. He himself felt that it was necessary because he felt that his peers didn't know wtf he would be talking about by speaking intelligently and, therefore, they were not capable of making informed decisions. Now, if we go to the side of the coin where we assume Stevens had no idea what he was talking about, then the person attempting to make an argument didn't know a damn thing about technology and we're still screwed.
I, for one, believe there should be some sort of test you need to pass to prove you have basic understandings of certain things before you can represent others. Or, better yet, choose people in the field to make policy; go to MIT, Stanford, IBM, Microsoft, Google, etc and make a tech representation senate. We don't NEED everyone in the government making decisions on everything; spread out the responsibility to those who are experts.
Honestly, if this is a thin plastic sheet that I can barely hold onto it won't be worth the added durability. Also, as I said, I doubt it will be foldable where I could put a hard crease into it like I can with a sheet of paper (necessary if I want to put in my wallet).
And get off my lawn (I knew I forgot something in my earlier post...)
Why would I care to have a flexible phone? What does this give me that a regular phone doesn't? These won't be "foldable" like a dollar bill so it won't go in my wallet. I doubt it would be durable enough to be indestructible so, again, why?
Slashdot Mirror
"New York City may be the first state"? Thats like watching a game show where the contestant is asked for a country in Europe that is fancy and them saying London or Paris.
My college also required a couple co-ops which were required to be a paid position so that they knew we were doing meaningful work that applied to our degree programs. Fetching coffee and running errands is not meaningful work (or experience) in my opinion.
Computer Science can be seen as having a theoretical and practical side. The theoretical side deals with defining how computers work, how to make them better, and why algorithms run the way they do and how to make them better. The practical side takes the theory and implements it; however, it still takes the abstract side to develop applications and make them do what you want efficiently.
You don't NEED math to write applications but without it, your applications will suck. Also, you won't be able to do anything much more advanced than a Helo, World application without memory and runtime issues. Also, go try to write a 3D Graphics engine without advanced math; I work on an OpenGL library and use matrix, vector, and physics maths every day. Not to mention the math I use to fine tune an application to run faster, use less memory, and logically fit parts together where they don't step on other running parts. You might never use some of the math you learn but you will use math and if you want to be taken seriously, learn it or go write websites in html.
There is no EULA or ToS; when you download a movie from bittorrent or some other such service, all the FBI warnings etc have already been removed. I'm not saying what they're doing is right (it isn't); just saying that it isn't an EULA or ToS issue.
I see no mention in the article about a bathroom; it was outside near a gazebo and she stated that she was doing a science fair experiment.
That was my first thought; maybe the better thing to do is create more competition in the market instead of allowing Verizon and AT&T to fuck us even harder. Like someone else said; the consumer is going to pay for the spectrum in the long run anyway; why not lower the cost of it (or lease it as another suggested) and lower everyone's phone bills. The less money we have to spend for cell service the more that goes to other businesses (ie. taxes; which would probably make up that made-up $12 billion figure eventually).
I love this idea; the thought that something like EM spectrum can be bought seems ridiculous. I understand the need to limit its use since having everyone attempting to use the same chunk would make it useless for all but "selling" it is telling the purchasing company that they now don't EVER have to deal with competition because nobody else can ever use that chunk.
Wow, I knew the euro was doing better than the dollar but I had no idea that $51.8 billion == 38 million euros...
And all those superconducting materials are cooled with ice cubes and happy thoughts.
Why the hell would a $10,000 phone only have a WVGA display? (800x480) That is beyond ridiculous.
I understand why it ended up this way; I was more interested in what Adobe's official answer to the AUS gov't was. (did they make some bullshit up or state what you wrote above?)
Because at work our customers want "lightweight" web applications (we do 3D visualization software) so we get to mess around with JS/WebGL but not often enough for me to look for a job elsewhere; thus the "annoying" adjective
Is there any news as to why they thought their prices should have been so high in the first place?
It's a morning show; they all suck. It doesn't have to be FOX News.
loosely typed language without declaration requirements for methods/variables makes it such a huge pain in the ass to debug/understand/update source that I want to have nothing to do with it.
first.mi.last@.domain.tld; if no middle initial, use x. if still not unique, add letters to middle initial (ie. Stephen could be first.st.last)
How about you don't worry about abandonware and, instead, keep a backup of all your apps (and any associated data) using something like Titanium Backup? Then, if something is pulled off the store you still have an apk you can install from if necessary. I know this doesn't handle new features but it would let you keep using something you really like.
So why only one planet? My comment still applies but it seems even more ridiculous. If you want people to opt-in/out of these choices, just ask for a sexual orientation during character creation (have an "other" section so people can see all options, maybe?). It's still ridiculous that it's limited to one planet. Does the star wars universe ferry all LGBT people to a single planet because they're a bunch of homophobic assholes? Seems shady at best on biowares part.
Sorry for the self-comment, but I just wanted to point out that I do not play SW:TOR and I am assuming these dialog choices are in-game macros like /wave and /dance (I've only ever played Final Fantasy XI and they were called emotes) or built-in chat messages that are also macros. I guess this could also be applied to chat filters but it didn't sound like it from the summary.
How about, instead of banning flirtatious dialog to a single planet, they remove it altogether if they intent to coddle their user base? If you're going to censor your players either go all or nothing. If you intend to take a stand at ignorant and bigoted viewpoints, then open it up game-wide and don't try to hide possibly objectionable content in the closet so to speak and, instead, put it out in the open. It's 2013 ffs and if people can't deal with other people being different, well, they can go fuck themselves.
Now, if this is because they don't want people harassing others with same-sex comments without actually being gay and are trying to limit that to a single planet then they should remove all suggestive comments entirely. If you're worried that a gay male character is going to offend a straight male character by telling him he looks sexy then don't have the comment available. The same can be said for a straight male making suggestive comments to a straight female; it can still be inappropriate and they don't have to be gay. If that's their issue; remove it entirely. (Well, I'd rather them ban players who can't behave like adults but that's another discussion I think.)
I always thought KDE in general looked like crap; and adding K at the front of all their apps seemed more lame and ridiculous than Apple's iWhoring...
heh, its a nice thought but there are benefits for having someone there who does understand matters of law. however, they shouldn't be making policy choices regarding science, education, welfare, etc because they are probably not experts; especially if they are more concerned with re-election and campaign contributions to do what is best for the nation (though, that could be the case with anyone we choose to represent us; even experts)
Just take a look at Ted Stevens' "series of tubes" comment to see the ineptitude of congress. Lets say, for the sake of argument that Stevens was "dumbing it down" for his peers in congress and he was well versed in techno-babble. He himself felt that it was necessary because he felt that his peers didn't know wtf he would be talking about by speaking intelligently and, therefore, they were not capable of making informed decisions. Now, if we go to the side of the coin where we assume Stevens had no idea what he was talking about, then the person attempting to make an argument didn't know a damn thing about technology and we're still screwed.
I, for one, believe there should be some sort of test you need to pass to prove you have basic understandings of certain things before you can represent others. Or, better yet, choose people in the field to make policy; go to MIT, Stanford, IBM, Microsoft, Google, etc and make a tech representation senate. We don't NEED everyone in the government making decisions on everything; spread out the responsibility to those who are experts.
Honestly, if this is a thin plastic sheet that I can barely hold onto it won't be worth the added durability. Also, as I said, I doubt it will be foldable where I could put a hard crease into it like I can with a sheet of paper (necessary if I want to put in my wallet).
And get off my lawn (I knew I forgot something in my earlier post...)
Why would I care to have a flexible phone? What does this give me that a regular phone doesn't? These won't be "foldable" like a dollar bill so it won't go in my wallet. I doubt it would be durable enough to be indestructible so, again, why?